Joe Biden wrapped up his two-day trip to Iraq today, promoting a new phase in US-Iraqi relations. But that phase, contrary to popular myth, will include US military troops on the ground throughout the country:

Iraq’s prime minister indicated on Wednesday that he was open to the eventual return of American troops as trainers, underscoring that the United States is likely to be involved in this country’s security even after the last soldiers depart in the coming weeks.

“No doubt, the U.S. forces have a role in providing training of Iraqi forces,” said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki after meeting Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is here to mark the withdrawal and to inaugurate a new phase in ties between the United States and Iraq.

Mr. Biden reaffirmed that the two countries would maintain a “robust security relationship,” adding that it was up to the Iraqis to decide “what you think that relationship should be.” He and Mr. Maliki agreed to set up a committee to plan security cooperation.

By casting the residual troops as “trainers,” Maliki no doubt wants to get around any Parliamentary sanction for military forces, which helped derail the effort the first time around. Perhaps it’s a way around the restriction on US troops in Iraq per the status of forces agreement as well.

We’re probably talking in the hundreds here, and if their training mission is carefully circumscribed, maybe it’s not the biggest issue in the hierarchy of foreign policy and national security. But it is instructive on the casual lies that the government uses to describe its actions. Remember that the withdrawal from Iraq has been cast as a great victory by the Administration and its supporters. It’s supposed to be a triumph, to extricate us from an unwinnable military conflict where our troops were not ultimately the answer to Iraq’s problems. But read the fine print. There will be some residual force training Iraqis, ready in case future threats to national security or terrorist actions necessitate a return to the battlefield. This is not a clean break. In short, it’s not what the American public was promised, in boasts by the Administration.

This could also be Maliki freelancing. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh insisted that the talks included nothing about security arrangements or the military. It’s possible that the talk by Maliki and Biden was intended for a domestic audience in the US.

But it looks more like the withdrawal will take place to great fanfare, everyone will wait until attentions are turned elsewhere, and then US military troops will return inside Iraq. Because the lesson of history over the last century is that the US military doesn’t truly leave anywhere.

20 Responses
to “Maliki Cements Acceptance of Post-Withdrawal Military Trainers in Iraq”

Wonder what we had to pay for this deal. And i wonder if Sadr isn’t smart enough to see through the word “trainers” and read the word “commando” as well as realize that “training mission” translates into “battlefield prep for Iran”.

One of Scott Horton’s recent interviews on antiwar.com (if I can figure out which one, I’ll link it), evidences that O is ‘better’ at carrying out neocon agenda of putting entire mideast into chaos than W was.

In short, it’s not what the American public was promised, in boasts by the Administration.

No kidding. But the US public won’t be told this by our so-called insanely “leftwing” media, now will it? Instead the giant propoganda wurlitzer will frame & spin this as a huge honking “victory” by Barry Zero.

What a load of crap, but I was never in doubt about this outcome, were you?

Let’s not all jump to conclusions here……
We all know that our next “kinetic military action” in support of NATO troops and a U.N. resolution pursuant to an IAEA directive will be in Iran. Right next door. Could easily be in a year or two. Wouldn’t it be “prudent” to keep s small force, right there, both as a deterrent to Ahmadinejad organizing an incursion, and to save the enourmous expense of bringing troops BACK, only to re-deploy them to fight Iran shortly thereafter.

Maliki is not likely going to be able to slip this ruse through either. The Sadrists will have none of it. Iraq is yet to have its Arab Awakening that puts pressure on the corrupt leaders. Ordinary Americans might be fooled by the word “trainers” but Iraqis are much less likely to be.

Or at least not without the US being completely out of the country and not meddling in Iraqi politics for at least a couple of years. Chance of that?

The problem is, one JDAM sailing into Iran is going to open up a can of worms the size of a 55 gallon oil-drum. (Comparison on purpose)

The Iranians have the hardware to close the Straits of Hormuz, for at least a while, and what that will do to the world’s economy is something that Wall Street and the Banksters don’t even want to THINK about.

Plus, the Shiites in Iraq will have a say (as will Hezbollah in Lebanon) especially, if Israel is in on the attack, and they likely will be.

There are so many downsides to attacking Iran that I think Obama at his most desperate-to-gin-up-support won’t do it. But then, I didn’t think Bush was idjit enough to invade Iraq, either. So….

Without American troops on VERY close stand-by, the embassy is going to be converted into the world’s largest and most expensive mortar-training range. I just do not believe that Iraqi “security” forces will be willing and eager to do a quick response to that.

I doubt that most of the 10,000 or so assigned to the Embassy are actually under Hillary’s control. But giver the Sadr love for us, without protection we have built a billion dollar mortar-training range.

A State Dept. employee revealed on Democracy Now that there will be a total of 16,000 personnel deployed at the Vatican sized Embassy, including 5000 private military contractors with a small air force, etc.